On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

Price County v. T.L., 2022AP1678, 4/25/2023, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The law governing default TPRs is messy. Click here. This decision makes it messier.

State v. Peter John Long, 2022AP496, District 2, 5/3/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The state concedes, and the court of appeals agrees, that Long is entitled to a hearing on his motion to reopen the default judgment entered in his refusal proceeding.

State v. James J. Socha, 2021AP1083-CR & 2021AP2116-CR, District 1, 4/25/23 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs): 2021AP1083-CR; 2021AP2116-CR

The fact that some of Socha’s prior OWI offenses have been lawfully vacated since he was sentenced may constitute a new factor justifying sentence modification, so the circuit courts erred in denying Socha’s motions for sentence modification without a hearing.

State v. Steven M. Nelson, 2021AP843-845, 4/4/23, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Nelson pleaded guilty to possessing meth as a repeater. He was eligible for the repeater enhancement because, on November 15, 2017, he’d been convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in Barron County Case No. 2017CF307. The information in this case noted the Barron County prior, but erroneously said it was another conviction for possessing meth. Postconviction and on appeal, Nelson submitted that the repeater enhancer is invalid because he didn’t receive notice of what the prior conviction was alleged to be.

On April 26, 2023, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

Outagamie County v. L.X.D.-O., 2023 WI App 17 (counties must move examiners’ reports into evidence at recommitment hearings, but not at initial commitment hearings).

Brown County Department of Human Services v. S.K., 2023 WI App 27; case activity

A court has grounds to terminate parental rights under §48.415(9m) when the parent commits a “serious felony against a child.” Here, the circuit court found that grounds existed to terminate Stephanie’s parental rights to Robert because she had been convicted of  child neglect resulting in death under but “as a party to the crime.” In a decision recommended for publication, the court of appeals reversed, but it rejected Stephanie’s argument that an “as a party to the crime” conviction can never qualify as a “serious felony.”

County of Grant v. Brad Alan Hochhausen, 2022AP1065, 4/13/23, District 4; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Hochhausen was convicted of speeding under §346.57(5). The circuit court imposed a 15-day suspension of Hochhausen’s operating privileges and a civil forfeiture pursuant to §343.30(1n). On appeal he argued that §343.30(1n) does not apply to convictions under §346.57(5), The court of appeals agreed and reversed.

State v. B.L., 2023AP8, 4/11/23, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Barry” appealed an order terminating his parental rights to his 4 1/2-year-old daughter, Alice. He argued that the circuit court erred in admitting his criminal history during the grounds phase and erred in finding that it was in Alice’s best interest to terminate his rights. He lost on both issues.

State v. Jesse E. Bodie, 2021AP1656-CR, District 4, 4/13/23 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A state patrol officer unlawfully frisked Bodie before allowing Bodie to sit in his squad car because, under the circumstances of this case, the officer didn’t have an objectively reasonable basis to suspect Bodie was armed and dangerous.

State v. Antwan Eugene Gill, 2022AP654-Cr, 4/6/23, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity (including briefs)

Gill was convicted for possession of THC and for operating a vehicle with a detectable amount of THC in his blood.  He argued that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to move for suppression of the results of field sobriety and blood tests and for failing to exploit inconsistences between an officer’s testimony and his report and squad-cams footage.  The court of appeals rejected both claims.